Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The proposed locations are located in 5 countries (Myanmar, Malaysia, Cambodia, Nepal, and Bangladesh). These locations are home for key biological diversity and species rarity, but they does not located in intact forest landscape according to geospatial data.
Evidence B:Regional approach and multiple sites makes this difficult to answer with a single answer, chose ‘medium-high’ to reflect diversity of sites, some v high, some not
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The proposed locations contain high carbon density.
Evidence B:Very difficult to answer again to to diversity of sites
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The proposed locations in five countries are maintained by strong and active IPLC with variety model of governance systems.
Evidence B:all sites show continued presence of indigenous community based governance, some unrecognised, some recognised, most with some partial degree to recognition less than full land rights
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The applicant clearly explained the unique cultural relationship between IPLCs and nature. All of IPLCs maintain the locations according to respective customary laws.
Evidence B:Due to multiple sites, each description is relatively high level, but strongly described. could get more information on each area
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: These five locations encounter different kind of threats include deforestation, large scale land project and land grabbing, illegal fishing and illegal wildlife market. Respective locations have high threat, and cumulatively require urgent action to tackle these problems.
Evidence B:Development, encrouchment of economic development and climate change most cited risks or threats
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The applicant clearly explained current IPLC-led conservation in these locations such as the Tagal System in Malaysia, and Village Common Forest in Bangladesh. In other proposed locations in Nepal, Cambodia and Myanmar, community-based natural resource management are also active and shows a significant progress.
Evidence B:Some constraints but in each place policy opportunities are described
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: National governments in five countries support the IPLC by creating legislation and program to enhance IPLC-led conservation, especially in Nepal, Malaysia and Cambodia.
Evidence B:Some level of support, or acceptance, in some areas, but also some active opposition at the national level - however each site and community involved has some degree of local, sub-national government acceptance
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The applicant explained some well established IPLCs’ governance system in Malaysia and Bangladesh. The IPLC’s governance in others countries have been implemented beyond pilot stages.
Evidence B:Not a large number, but some beyond pilot, some are building on generations of effective conservation
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: The applicant listed 12 projects to complement investment in the proposed project.
Evidence B:other initiatives exist but are relatively small when considered over the geographical spread of this proposal
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposed project is exceptionally well aligner with the main objective of the ICI to enhance IPLCs’ effort to steward land and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits.
Evidence B:well aligned, particularly in stewarding resources, albeit on a relatively small scale in each site or area
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The proposed activities in the EoI are clear and convincing. These activities are directed to specific and achievable outcomes.
Evidence B:strong design, internal logic - not a higher score due to the need for more information in each site - the design is generalised across all but bespoke responses will be needed as well
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Neither development pressures nor mitigation of climate change are mentioned explicitly, although capacity building and secure tenure could mitigate both
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The applicant indicated that the proposed activities are not aligned with EoI range of investment. The main reason behind this is the big consortium established by AIPP in 5 countries with 10 partner organisations.
Evidence B:Due to the scale of the proposal, probably not enough funding even at the top end, although perhaps. proponent also answers no.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The applicant has listed existing projects in the proposed locations and indicated some potential resource mobilization to implement this project.
Evidence B:One significant additional project, a number of smaller one.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The proposed locations are realistic including 53.546 hectares. This indicated that the applicant really considering focus area of intervention to deliver concrete impact of the project.
Evidence B:Relatively low area even when combining all sites
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The applicant has listed some cultural and livelihood results as indicators of the project.
Evidence B:excellent
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The proposed project is targeted to strengthen regional indigenous peoples network on the promotion of indigenous knowledge so called Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples of Asia (IKPA). This network is intended to be a robust long-term network for promoting IPLC-led conservation programs.
Evidence B:Scope and diversity of sites provides a pathway to scale, and longer-term impact, by expanding political space and evidence for others to follow, but financing is probably a conitnued need
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The proposed activities is consistent and directly contributes to the national priorities such as the NBSAP and NDC.
Evidence B:NBSAPs and NDCs are both expected at a global level to account for IPLC contributions - this project targets that expectation, but not clear that it tallies with national priorities
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The applicant works with partner that have gender policy to ensure women participation in implementation of the project. This project also intended to connect indigenous women with existing Indigenous Women’s Network (NIWA)
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The proposed activities and collaboration between the applicant and national NGOs in five countries potentially resulted in a demonstrative innovation of IPLC-led conservation programs.
Evidence B:As noted above, pathway to scape is there, and indigenous leadership is clear
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The proposed project will execute by the applicant with NGOs and IPLC organisations. Division of tasks and activities are clearly divided in the EoI.
Evidence B:yes
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The applicant has exceptional and long-standing leadership relevant to the proposed of this project
Evidence B:yes, and indigenous rights, indigenous leadership and capacity building more generally
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The applicant has exceptional and long-standing leadership relevant to the proposed of this project. IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles and the project is strongly linked with national and regional IPO networks.
Evidence B:yes
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities and the applicant also have past experience with GEF funded projects, which is Supporting Indigenous Peoples Network in the implementation of CBD and the Nagoya Protocol.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The applicant has outstanding experience working with more than 10 donor agencies and maintain annual budget USD 3.5 millions.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:No